Seriously? Basically all life on Earth as we know it (with the exception of stuff like chemosynthetic life) ultimately gets its energy from the sun. When I was a kid, they taught this stuff in kindergarten. All other things being equal (and subject to some other factors, but not ones that greatly invalidate this general rule) crop yields are directly proportional to the amount of light we get from the sun. Dim that enough to prevent global warming, and we can't feed ourselves any more without using a lot more cropland. Not to mention that most farms operate on incredibly thin margins as it is, so there's a mass wave of them going out of business, etc.

The greenhouse effect doesn't happen because we get too much sunlight, it happens because the atmosphere is basically transparent to most of the incoming light but, when it gets converted to IR, the atmosphere is opaque to that IR, so it absorbs it and warms and re-emits it back to the ground. The amount of light passing through the atmosphere is a completely different variable. Trying to fix global warming by tweaking a different variable that affects other things too is a very tricky proposition. It's like if the water pressure in a downstairs tap is too high, but it's fine on the third floor, so you put in a regulator at the water main and reduce the pressure for the whole house. Great, you just solved the downstairs water pressure problem, but you just created a low water pressure problem on those upstairs taps. Basically, you will have "fixed" the wrong problem. If we want an analogy that relates more directly to heat, let's say you have an electronics project that keeps overheating. So you "solve" the problem by reducing the amperage from the power source. With less power it doesn't heat up so mach. Problem solved, except of course that now for some strange reason the LED display isn't lighting up right and it keeps powering on, then abruptly powering off and back on again. Weird.

I didn't even go into weather. Dimming the sun on a global scale will have a massive effect on weather. I mean, that's the idea right? To affect climate, which will also affect weather. The problem is that it won't just magically be the same weather you would get without the greenhouse effect, the actual distribution of energy will be different. Among other problems will be severe droughts in various areas that will increase desertification. Basically, you'll break monsoon cycles in some areas, decrease the hydrologic cycle overall, etc. If you're shaking your head and confused about how some of the same bad stuff from global warming can happen even in a system that reduces overall warming, that's one of the reasons why many have been trying to emphasize that it's about climate change. All of the Earth's biospheres as well as human civilizations tend to rely on the status quo. Massively changing it on the short term is usually a catastrophe. Global warming does that, but so does global dimming. You can't just target one single variable (global average temperature) and if you keep that stable, you're golden.

I saw a wall-sized TV at Walmart tonight for $698. Like foot traffic might damage it in a normal house.

There has to be some additional revenue source.

Or Saint Helena. It's been a while since they had such a distinguished "guest".

Such as?

But we don't want that! Yes, we want the global temperatures to stay down, but not by having less sunlight. That would have its own set of problematic consequences.

And there are 240 pence in a pound, so that's 960 Farthings. Four farthings in a pence, 12 pence in a shilling, 20 shillings in a pound. Of course, then it gets more complicated when you get to coins like the guinea, which was introduced as a one pound gold coin, but since it was gold, was prone to fluctuating values, but the British government eventually locked its value at 21 shillings. Later, in the Regency era, they minted the sovereign, which had less gold to reset the value and that was worth exactly one pound. Of course, both coins were vulnerable to the bullion value being too far above the face value to avoid the coins being melted down. So, while the system isn't impossibly complicated, it wasn't very cut and dried either.

It's only rocket science. It's not like imperial to metric conversion errors are going to crash something into Mars or anything.

That may be the case. That's why they were "wondering". The answer in fact could even be that time will tell if the risk pays off and that it's possible that, even if all three are successes, it still might actually not have been worth it vs. three new satellites on this attempt. Rather, if this succeeds as a proof of concept, it might actually shift from not technically being worth it this time to being worth it on future missions with even more moving parts. In other words, this could actually be an experiment that is worth it just for the knowledge gained.

That is pretty great, and it is one half of what I'm talking about. The other half is on the car side though, where the car would be built so that a self-driving module would be an add on module kit that the car is pre-configured to accept, rather than being essentially monolithically tethered to the car so that it's there when you buy the car (and you actually pay for the hardware) and then you have to buy a subscription. The same should apply to the infotainment, and everything else that ism't really a core feature of the car.

This isn't helping. If you can offer information of specific substantive value that is relevant to this I would still love to hear it.. I have zero clue what you are talking about or trying to say. What legal decisions? What illegal actions? How specifically do you believe they are relevant to an administration attempting to enforce laws that don't exist?

'79 928 says "Hello."

These are the same lazy dolts that call them selves "Software Engineer" yet don't know shit on how software actual works beyond an ID, don't understand software developer ethics, and think the can be sloppy because "computers have a lot of RAM" completely blind to the idea there janky ass software isn't the only thing running on a computer.

Modern IDEs have lead to this industry being full undisciplined half wits.

I literally do. Stop being bad at your job.

"I know it is counter to modern coding practices"
it is not. It's literally best practice. Coders not doing this are bad at their job, and should be fired.

Of course the law matters. What is that supposed to mean? What are you talking about? How specifically do you expect to get a conviction in an article III court of something that isn't even illegal?